Should the Prez serve one 6-year term?
Achtung 45
12-02-2006, 01:31
It's been brought up in Congress and there are strong arguments for and against it, but personally, I'd like to see that plan implemented. Eight years is way too long (especially for someone like Bush) and a single four year term doesn't allow enough time for the President to learn how to be President before they have to start running for reelection.
However, some people say that the need for the Persident to win reelection keeps them attentive to what the people want, and you know how President's second term almost always sucks because they needn't worry about winning reelection.
What do you think? Poll coming
[NS]Liasia
12-02-2006, 01:33
Make it possible for a president to win MORE THAN TWICE. Crazy Americans *mumbles*
I don't know; it seems like it would take that apathy that comes with reelection and make it last the entire term instead of just 4 years in the second term. Once you're elected you can't be reelected anyways so why bother to meet the demands of the people at all?
Super-power
12-02-2006, 01:37
Psh, make it one four-year term, and slap the limit of 2 terms to Congress.
Achtung 45
12-02-2006, 01:41
I don't know; it seems like it would take that apathy that comes with reelection and make it last the entire term instead of just 4 years in the second term. Once you're elected you can't be reelected anyways so why bother to meet the demands of the people at all?
that's true, but if the public doesn't like it, approval ratings will drop, and that's not good whether they're running for reelection or not. All Presidents will want to create a legacy and they will want to be remembered as a great president. Also, if they're too horrible, there's always impeachment...or assassination:p
Free Farmers
12-02-2006, 01:54
Hmmm, how about....NO!
Instead what would be a better system is having 3 year terms and allowing 3 terms. Then presidents are held even more accountable for their actions, as they have shorter terms. Also a shorter term means if they do get elected a third time then they will have less time to fuck things up because they don't give a damn what happens after the term is over.
Ashmoria
12-02-2006, 01:58
have you noticed how nothing of bush's platform has a chance of passing? thats because as soon as he was re-elected he was a lame duck. why in the world would we want a 6 year lame duck?
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
12-02-2006, 01:59
A better system would be to abolish Democracy and allot a one month term as President to whoever wins a national lottery. Then we can just fully admit that we have no idea what the Hell we're doing.
Super-power
12-02-2006, 02:06
A better system would be to abolish Democracy and allot a one month term as President to whoever wins a national lottery. Then we can just fully admit that we have no idea what the Hell we're doing.
Lol, kinda like the lottery which kept the hope of the proles alive in 1984?
Psh, make it one four-year term, and slap the limit of 2 terms to Congress.
Then nothing will get done.
I love it!
I think we should have a standardized test. Whoever gets the best score will become president. The test will be administered every two years.
Free Farmers
12-02-2006, 02:26
I think we should have a standardized test. Whoever gets the best score will become president. The test will be administered every two years.
Smartest doesn't always equal best leader. Nor one who is most liked by the people. Plus, who makes the standardized test? The government I would assume. Meaning the person in charge (el presidento) picks the questions and makes it so they stay in power.
Bobs Own Pipe
12-02-2006, 02:30
No, make it into a TV show - American Political Idol. Then it can be about who wears their clothes the best.
Smartest doesn't always equal best leader. Nor one who is most liked by the people. Plus, who makes the standardized test? The government I would assume. Meaning the person in charge (el presidento) picks the questions and makes it so they stay in power.
Lol, that wasn't a serious suggestion. There are obviously some pretty big flaws with a country that has a test to see who should be president. :)
Free Farmers
12-02-2006, 02:34
Lol, that wasn't a serious suggestion. There are obviously some pretty big flaws with a country that has a test to see who should be president. :)
Oh, sorry. I think my joke sensor has been deactivated by posting in General too much. ;)
Pantygraigwen
12-02-2006, 02:34
Make it like a beauty contest, where the person with the straightest teeth and nicest hair wins and becomes Pres...
oh shit, you already did that, didn't you?
Kinda Sensible people
12-02-2006, 02:34
Then nothing will get done.
I love it!
Is that any different from usual?;)
A better system would be to abolish Democracy and allot a one month term as President to whoever wins a national lottery. Then we can just fully admit that we have no idea what the Hell we're doing.
Something similar was done in Ancient Athens...
Most positions (with the sole exception of military ones... for good reason) were randomed off.
Keruvalia
12-02-2006, 02:36
We should go back to the ancient Greek way and every position in government is decided by lottery. Anyone who is registered to vote is entered into the lottery.
New drawing every 3 years.
Refusal to serve the public is punished by exile.
The Religion of Peace
12-02-2006, 02:39
Hmmm, how about....NO!
Instead what would be a better system is having 3 year terms and allowing 3 terms. Then presidents are held even more accountable for their actions, as they have shorter terms. Also a shorter term means if they do get elected a third time then they will have less time to fuck things up because they don't give a damn what happens after the term is over.If you did this, presidents would spend all their time trying to get re-elected. I'd rather have one 8 or 9-year term. Get elected once, give us your best job, re-join society.
Is that any different from usual?;)
No, the government is very successful in gaining more power for itself.
Free Farmers
12-02-2006, 02:42
If you did this, presidents would spend all their time trying to get re-elected. I'd rather have one 8 or 9-year term. Get elected once, give us your best job, re-join society.
Problem with your plan and all one term plans is that basically makes all president's unaccountable to society. They will just further there agenda that they didn't campaign on. And you want them to be able to do that for almost a decade? You my friend, are a lunitic or live in the fuzziest world to ever exist...wait that's the same thing.
Hobbesianland
12-02-2006, 18:25
Eight years is way too long (especially for someone like Bush) and a single four year term doesn't allow enough time for the President to learn how to be President before they have to start running for reelection.
Very silly. Four years is fine, and the people can always opt for another. If you think second-term presidents are inattentive, why would a one-term president be any more attentive?
Free Farmers
12-02-2006, 18:34
Very silly. Four years is fine, and the people can always opt for another. If you think second-term presidents are inattentive, why would a one-term president be any more attentive?
Because second year term presidents can't run for re election, 1st termers can.
Mariehamn
12-02-2006, 18:36
In Finland, we got a 6-year term. We're thinking about lowering it. Hilarious! :p
Its not going to happen by the way. Don't get your hopes up.
Two-year terms seem best to me, with unlimited re-election.
The Similized world
12-02-2006, 19:41
I think you should scrap the system entirely & adopt something else, like a proper representative democratic system, for example.
Two-year terms aren't very efficient, if you ask me. They don't allow enough time to initiate any serious change in policy.
Of course, it isn't much of a problem when you effectively have what amounts to two warring factions of the same right-wing party.
Why only reform the president's terms? How about the whole system?
For instance:
-Impose a term limit for Congressmen. (Let's try to break up that 95% incumbancy shall we?)
-Impose a term limit for Supreme Court Justices (Lifetime appointments...a little bit frightening to be honest.)
Bakamongue
12-02-2006, 20:17
I don't get the "Yes-But Senators serve 4 years, so as to keep the stagger" option...
Every two six-year presidencies and three four-year (possibly concurrent with the same incumbant) senatorships, there'll be a coincidence again...
(I'm assuming here, merely from the presence of the above option, that currently Senatorial elections are on the year halfway between the Presidentials... Apologies if I'm wrong, being a non-Merkin...)
Two-year terms aren't very efficient, if you ask me. They don't allow enough time to initiate any serious change in policy.
Good. I don't want any drastic changes without the ability to stop them in the middle if I don't like them.
Make the politicians fear us, always.
Straughn
13-02-2006, 03:00
No, make it into a TV show - American Political Idol. Then it can be about who wears their clothes the best.
You know, some issues came up during the 2004 about hair being a BIG factor.
[obligatory snark]
I think the President should serve a 6 year term in jail.
[/obligatory snark]
No, the current system is better. This one would be more annoying, since you would often either:
1. Lose 2 years off a good president's term
2. Add 2 years to a bad president's term
No, the current system is better. This one would be more annoying, since you would often either:
1. Lose 2 years off a good president's term
2. Add 2 years to a bad president's term
It's more lose 2 years off of a good president's term and lose 2 off of a bad president's term. Incumbancy's great, isn't it?